New Scenario - Blocking Action At Lipki

[Ratzki]

Give my "H2H-Drive on Skirmanovo" scenario a run through and see what you think. H2H play only. It's in the approved scenario section. I think you will find it a prettty even run for both sides. It is not very forgiving to the side that makes a mistake, but both sides have won equally, and by wide margins as well. The OOB are not out of line with the time period it is set in, and though it can start a little slow, depending on the Russian player and his plans, you won't be lacking for targets once things get rolling.

[Mad Russian]

Don't bother.
If it's like his Guderian Attacks or Borisov scenarios, the scenario is worthless. Historically inaccurate and grossly tilted to the Soviet player, despite the fact that the time period portrayed is during the Barbarossa campaign.
Bear likes putting the German player at a distinct disadvantage by setting the OOB as mostly less than Veteran status forces.
The Guderian Attacks scenario suffers from all the German forces being forced to set up and cross two bridges before being able to deploy for battle. The time required to cross and deploy takes between three to five turns out of a thirteen turn scenario.

See, this is the kind of thing a playtester should see when pulling up the battle to look to see if he wants to playtest it or not.

He should also see where the designer has responded with comments, discussions and updates. As is all you get is the scenario briefing. A show of who played it and an overall rating number.

Should I put my comments out here on this forum then for everyone to see?

I have about two pages of notes, recommendations, observations on this scenario but not sure how to get them to the designer. Should they be put here? Or how should I get them to the designer where there will be a discussion about my findings for his scenario and not have me just shoot them off into space?

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

From what I can tell, Bear is only doing old ASL/SL scenarios. The maps look like it, the OOB's look like and the briefings reflect it.

I have all the scenarios that he uses for reference.

Any, scenario that is an exit scenario that doesn't give the exiting side a bonus for half the exiting point total is worthless!

ANY EXIT SCENARIO THAT DOESN'T GIVE THE EXITING SIDE A BONUS EQUAL TO HALF IT"S POINT TOTAL IS WORTHLESS!!!!!


Just in case you missed it the first time I typed it....

All of Bear's scenarios seem to be exit scenarios. I haven't checked them to see if they have the bonus. And of course this doesn't just apply to his scenarios, but any designers exit scenario. It took me years to find out why exit scenarios wouldn't score right. I have a couple on TSDII now that have been getting positive comments instead of the old, " I avoid exit scenarios at all costs!"

The issue with exit scenarios is how they are scored. You lose the cost of the unit if it doesn't exit. On top of that you lose any points for the units that are destroyed normally.

To compensate for those two issues you need to allow for the exiting side to lose some units and still have a chance at winning. Rarely would a side be expected to move all of their forces off the map to win. Giving a bonus of half the points is a place to start. Playtesting will tell you if a particular scenario needs more or less than that.

The designer and I have started playing this one so the end of the game AAR should tell what kind of a bonus this scenario may or may not need. I have yet to do an exit scenario that is H2H and look forward to see how Bear handles the issue of exiting enough units to win.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mr Grumpy]

I would suggest you first contact the designer by PM or email and ask if he would like all the info you have rather than just sending it to him or posting it here....

[Mad Russian]

I would suggest you first contact the designer by PM or email and ask if he would like all the info you have rather than just sending it to him or posting it here....

That's an excellent idea and is what we normally do at TPG. It's also what I did in this case.

The designer and I have started to playtest this scenario.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

Don't bother.
If it's like his Guderian Attacks or Borisov scenarios, the scenario is worthless. Historically inaccurate and grossly tilted to the Soviet player, despite the fact that the time period portrayed is during the Barbarossa campaign.
Bear likes putting the German player at a distinct disadvantage by setting the OOB as mostly less than Veteran status forces.
The Guderian Attacks scenario suffers from all the German forces being forced to set up and cross two bridges before being able to deploy for battle. The time required to cross and deploy takes between three to five turns out of a thirteen turn scenario.

This isn't fair to the designer.

He has some very interesting ideas. Once he explains what he's doing in his scenarios and where he's trying to take them they are both thought provoking and interesting.

All the tempest in a tea cup here on the site may well have doomed any chance we had of working together though.

For that I mostly blame myself. This all got way out of hand and most of it was in Bear's thread for his scenario.

The designer has called off the playtest. That works for me. It's his scenario.

We didn't play long but here are my thoughts concerning the gameplay we did and the conversations we had:

***** SPOILER ALERT******* What follows will have comments and information that is capable of affecting gameplay for those that have not played the game yet.

What I found in the short time we were playing is:

There is a black setup zone that could cause players to miss the fact that they have more than one group of Germans on the map. I missed it and it could happen to others as well.

Some of the Germans start panicked and they can't be moved on setup. That's nothing that will affect how you set them up obviously. A player note in the briefings to let gamers know that they can't be moved would be nice but you'll find out quick enough when you try to move them.

There is no Russian bonus in this scenario to help them absorb any losses that will come from combat. I think that's a mistake. Nothing that can't be fixed and one of the issues I was interested in finding out during game play with the designer. If I can improve my own exit scenarios all the better. I have learned more from helping other designers than I ever learned on my own. It's a great way to see how others have tackled and often solved a problem that has you stopped cold.

Bear's scenarios seem to have tremendous potential. His point of view is not what most people think of for the early part of the war. He does things like give the Germans the "tank terror" and for the most part seems to make that work. Again, we didn't play all that much of the scenario so hard to tell how it all turns out.

His works all seem to be based on SL/ASL scenarios. Those are what he lists in his briefings. The research on those is decades old and there is probably better information about the fights available today. But that's okay if the goal is to put SL/ASL scenarios to CM. It's been done many times before and there is a core of gamers that likes that niche. The maps are all SL/ASL look alikes. Not my own cup of tea but not bad.

Bear seems to take alot of time trying to "get it right" from our discussions he seems extremely intelligent, thoughtful and determined to make his work the best that he can make it.

For that alone I think his work deserves a look by most serious gamers of history. He isn't giving you the canned version of the Eastern Front you are getting most everyplace else. He gives you the odd engagement and the different perspective of history that you might not have looked at before.

This may well earn him the disapproval of some, as from the quote I started this thread with. I think if he will do the little things, expand his briefings a bit to include the information, such as, the fact that the Germans are in the throes of the Tank Terror, that they are disorganized from the initial Soviet assaults, it won't be blatantly obvious to most gamers I think, and IMO check to see if the Soviets can win. There seems to be at least a possibility that the Germans may not stop this attack with the directions they were given in their briefing to "proceed to Hill 538", which is in the middle of the map. I wasn't sure why I was told that but I had all my forces moving that direction. I thought it would leave my flanks open but maybe not. The designer has played this scenario alot. Enough that it's version V15. I would think that means 1.5 and not 15 but even so that means he has adjusted this scenario at least five separate times. Alot of thought and effort went into this scenario. Far too much to just gloss over with, "Don't bother."

I think it's absolutely worth a look. You will certainly need to try it with an open mind. These are not the German forces you see on a rampage in the early months of the war in the east but one that is rocked back on it's heels by meeting Russian tanks they had not idea existed. A force that had to come up with ways of fighting right then...on the spot...with tanks they had never seen before and that were inherently better than what they themselves had.

Bear's work will do nothing if not make you stop and think about the Eastern Front in a different way. A way much different than what you get out the German propaganda. Not much from the Soviet propaganda either. I didn't see the scenario be overly biased toward the Soviets. What I did see is a designer that is striving to make the eastern front shown from a different perspective than what you usually find. A concept I can hardly fault since my entire designing career has been formed on that same concept.

Do yourself a favor and take a look at the down and dirty part of WWII. I think that may well be what Bear does better than most and maybe better than anybody. If you like nice neat clean battlefields with the units singing on their way into battle all fat dumb and happy Bears scenarios may well not be for you. If however, you want to get as close to a simulation of WWII...in his words, "An historical war scenario is a snap shot of a place in the past and things do not go as the statistics say they ought to or should have."

I think that best sums up Bear's works from what I've seen. His will be scenarios about how things went and maybe not how they should have.

Give his scenario a try and see for yourself. You may well not only do some playtesting, you might make a friend as well. That doesn't always happen but usually both the designer and the playtester get alot out of the playtesting experience. After all you are both sharing ideas concepts and usually in-depth discussions on your favorite hobby. Some of my closest CM associates started off by one of us playtesting the others work.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Bear]

Don't bother.
If it's like his Guderian Attacks or Borisov scenarios, the scenario is worthless. Historically inaccurate and grossly tilted to the Soviet player, despite the fact that the time period portrayed is during the Barbarossa campaign.
Bear likes putting the German player at a distinct disadvantage by setting the OOB as mostly less than Veteran status forces.
The Guderian Attacks scenario suffers from all the German forces being forced to set up and cross two bridges before being able to deploy for battle. The time required to cross and deploy takes between three to five turns out of a thirteen turn scenario.

:censored:

This forum is for Play Testing. If Catastrophe had issue(s) with scenarios play balance and historical relevance. Then I will acknowledge such and make all the necessary reviews and revisions, as I have with both Guderian Attacks and Borisov Bridgehead before Catastrophe "tagged" them as being "worthless".
In addition, I am bewildered to then read "Ratzki" pile on by plugging his scenario as a superior alternative since it is an approved H2H Scenario. Both are obviously "Off Topic" here and out of line criticizing a scenario which neither one has played.
Where is the moderator, can I get a witness?
I appreciate "Foul" and "Mad Russian" supporting this very point.
Some of us believe in the "Club" and the fundamentals of honor, fairness and mutual respect for one another as gamers AND men.
Our focus should be on making the Blitz Club a portal for advancing our hobby by bonding with members and recruiting new ones, no?